About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13
environment in africa is different than other parts of the world. i'm shiewfer that was a factor. some of the aircraft you're referring to are actually -- we don't want them in the inventory. of their sustain ability and capability. so, i mean, i know the analysis was done. i'm sure that it followed the rules of competition by the federal acquisition regulation. i don't know the ci think the am looking for here is before we do contracting as a default position on logistic, as we're, i mean, what i worry about in the sriing budget environment there's going to be more o tenden just sthat we should contract it out. because it's cheaper. and if afghanistan and iraq applaud anything that's not always true. and if you don't have adequate contracting oversight. it's not and especially when it's inherently a governmental function and we can spend a whole hearing tsh we -- we have many on that. i want to make sure it's a new day. as we begin to do new solicitation for new logistic support contract in any threat environment, there has to be a really detailed analysis done as to it is going to sa
despair and poverty as well as the uncertain implications of the environment of degradation. meanwhile the face of technological change and the spread of advanced military technology to state and nonstate actors poses an increasing challenge to the united states military. this is the strategic environment facing the department of defense as it enters a third year of flat declining budgets. the onset of these these resource constraints hazarded lead to significant and ongoing belt-tightening and military modernization force structure personnel and overhead expenditures. you have noted some of those mr. chairman. it has also given us an opportunity, an opportunity to to reshape the military and reform defense institutions to better reflect 21st century realities flexibility agility. the process began in the leadership of secretary gates who canceled or curtailed more than 30 modernization programs and trimmed overhead costs within the military services and across the defense enterprise. the realignment continued undersecretary panetta who worked closely with the president and the joint c
an encreasing challenge to america's military. this is the environment that is facing the department of defense as it enters a third year of flat or declining budgets. the onset of these constraints has led to belt tightening in military modernization, force structure, personnel costs and overhead expenditures. it has given us the opportunity to reshape the military and reform defense institutions to better reflect 21st century realities. the process began under the leadership of secretary gates. secretary gates curtailed more than 30 modernization programs and trimmed overhead costs within the military services and across the defense enterprise. the realignment continued secretary panetta who crafted new strategic guidance in an f.y. 2013 defense budget plan which reduced the department's top line by $487 billion over the course of a decade. the president's request of $526.6 billion for fy 2014 continues to implement the president's defense strategic guidance and enhances the department's efforts at institutional reform. most critically, it sustains the quality of the all-volunteer force and t
-- [inaudible] the serious threat assessment our threat environment is changing. threats are more interconnected and viral. defense which it first -- disruption with the u.s national interest. i would ketrn to a few of the issues e identify in the statement for the record. our statement to the lead was cyber. as mor more state and demonstrate actors gained expertise. it's important to reach a global threat cannot be overstated. this year our discussion natural resources also more prominent because climb in disease and competition for natural resources and huge national security implications. many import are extreme war and food stress that can destablize governments that can trigger conflict. on the issue of terrorism, the threat from al qaeda and the potential for a massive coordinated attack on the united may be diminished. but it's more diffuse. as the president stated on tuesday about the boston marathon bombing we don't know it was planned by an group effort or individual act. lone inspire our affiliated group are determined to attack. the turmoil in the arab world brought a spike in threat
the policy environment the so conducive to dealing with the key issues between the u.s. and mexico. the immigration bill is hot and heavy, front and center. marco rubio did ginsburg in espagnole. he had five sunday shows, to talk about immigration. the gang of eight is hard at work on that. guns, u.s.-mexico relations. outink the guns may come not quite as favorable to mexico's longstanding positions as the immigration debate might. i would take a 14 two. we will be in good shape. the third is trade. mexico, the united states, now japan, canada, are linked in the trans-pacific partnership talks. talks with many of our key trading allies across the pacific. many of us view it as a chance to help bring nafta into the 21st century. the three are very much on the u.s. agenda. it shows great forward progress. welcome all of you to what promises to be a truly fascinating session. be second reason this will terrific is because of our panelists. i will say little bit more about the ambassador of mexico. doris meissner, who i served with in the clinton administration. she is one of our grea
of exchanges going on right now. forward to a post 2013 environment, to you believe these multibillion-dollar payments will continue regardless of their being an american presence or nato troop presence in afghanistan? maintaineve we need to a constructive and effective relationship with pakistan. we need to recognize the real threat that pakistan has inside of its own borders. from my perspective we have to do whatever it takes to ensure that our national vital interests is protected. >> one of the things i am always looking into that aid is whether or not it does serve the military. you are saying we need to do whatever it takes to continue that relationship. are you saying that payments of that size and nature are going to be what is required in the long run? >> i believe it is in our best interest to continue to develop the pakistani army in ensuring that they can effectively deal issues in their borders. i cannot tell you that every program we have in place is one we ought to assisting in the future. that is not something i paying particular attention to in my current duties. i am
store and there are issues i have about consumer protection in that environment. while i appreciate, it is a concept that could work, we need strategies that are going to take into consideration varying factors and that the goal here, and in addition to being able to be in the black, is that, you have a public service and we have to serve these con at this time cents. i would really encourage you with your leadership on the board of governors to really think about ways that are going to be unique, more than just flexibility to get there. that you're looking at quality, connectivity, those relationships, the rural fabric in these states, related to the post office. when i was in inaing the postal service was a very effective partner in receiving those constituents, thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. and recognize the gentleman from mr. georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just in listening and writing down notes, we went all over the map from the importance of postal service. i don't think anybody will detract from that. we talked before. you been in committees before. i serve an
. the environment is not agreed to. >> a few minutes ago, the minority in the united states senate decided it was not worth it. they blocked common sense gun reforms even while the families looked on from the senate gallery. >> a big loss for president obama and big loss from the fam faps from newtown who traveled to washington to lobby lawmakers and they lost on the big amendment that was agreed to by democrat manchin and republican toomey. republicans that voted yes, toomey and kirk and collins from maine and mccain from arizona. democrats who voted no. hicamp from north dakota. prior from arkansas . begas from alaska and baucus and reid. >> at the white house it was technically more bipartisan. even hoe harry reid did vote the way he did. i was struck by the want president's comments just before we went on air when he let loose on with a tirade. now, i don't think it was likely anyway. but the president is not -- and that is the way he attacks today . if you read the president's comments simply on the attack of the fellow red state demdements. it is a searing indictment of them and the
as well as the overall fiscal environment, i believe that controlling energy costs across the board now and in the future is an important goal for the department of defense. the operational energy implementation plan that was -- that identified incorporating energy security concerns into the requirements and acquisitions process as one of the targets for the department to implement, you know, i wtedte importance of those goals and how we are doing and making sure that energy use criteria and factors are consideredded in acquisition planning processes. >> thank you, senator. as i noted in my response for me or the leadership in the department of defense, our energy use, our energy sources, cost and energy, are and must be a high priority. that's research and development. it's not just budget, but it's the security, reliant of our sources of energy, so we continue to put a high priority on programs. we continue to invest in those programs. as you noted, as has been much of the conversation this morning, we have less money. >> uh-huh. >> appears we're going to have even less money, so we h
easy. it is challenging in this fiscal environment. administrations 39 budget -- $39 million budget request. consistent with what congress appropriated in 2013 for the department before sequestration cuts were applied. the level of funding in this budget is lower than what congress appropriated in 2009. stepping back and thinking of the challenges that our country and this department has faced since 2009, times square bombing, hurricane sandy, the ever-changing and growing cyber threat, and of the boston attack, it is easy to become concerned with this budget request. we are facing extremely difficult budgetary times. sacrifices must be made. they may not receive all of the funding. and agencies in government must share in the sacrifice to some extent required during this deficit. our secretary seems to have taken this message to heart. he is identified $1.3 billion in savings this year and more than $4 billion since 2009. he continues to move from a risk-based approach and it effort to save more money. i'm happy to see this budget proposes a much-needed increase for cybersecurity,
to make sure it fosters an environment where we can have small, medium and large banks, where we can have community banks that thrive, regional banks that tlooip thrive and large global banks. incidentally, andrew, if you look at the largest 50 banks, only about a half dozen are u.s. banks and incidentally, of the top 20 or 25 banks, our largest is number ten. so in terms of the size of our banks vis-a-vis our overall economy, much smaller than our international fears. >> but what about the idea that it's not just the banks. it's the financial companies, the insurance companies -- >> in addition to banks, we do have insurance companies in the financial services forum. >> there have been a lot of questions raised about all the regulations that were dropped on the banks when some of these other companies, like aig, for example, they were a huge problem and they're not going to be regulated in quite the same way. there's talk about cracking down on the insurer, as well. >> in the case of the nonbank, the group that was created under dodd-frank, the fsoc, is looking to designate a number of t
, but in this environment, the one thing i would ask for is more latitude in how we take the cut to fit the money with the most important payoff is. with respect to the question you raised, it is an age-old one and intelligence. the approach or try to take in the last two years is try to protect and invest in capabilities that give us the most general coverage. that's why a very strong on sustaining our overhead reconnaissance capability because it covers the earth, denied area or not and similarly, even when times are then, human capability is extremely important. that's when the hu what dr. vickers are io brilliae as much as it is a reshaping, recastg he organization i started in 1992 caughhet t defense humanrvice. better integration with the fbi and the cia. more clandestine case officer's who are worth their weight in gold. the unique capability no one else can render. as they make reductions, we have to focus much much more on quality, quality of investment since are not going to have in numbers. >> one quick question that's come up a number of times. and there is clear evidence, public evid
environment facing the department of defense as it enters a third year of flat or declining budgets. the onset of these resource constraints has already led to significant and ongoing belt- tightening in military modernization, force structure, personnel costs, and overhead expenditures. it has also given us an opportunity to reshape the military and reform defense institutions to better reflect 21st century realities. the process began under the leadership of secretary gates, who canceled or curtailed more than 30 modernization programs and trimmed overhead within the military services and across the defense enterprise. these efforts reduced the department's topline by $78 billion over a five year period, as detailed in the department's fy 2012 budget plan. the realignment continued under secretary panetta, who worked closely with the president and the joint chiefs of staff to craft new defense strategic guidance and a fy 2013 defense budget plan which reduced the department's topline by $487 billion over the course of a decade. the president's request of $526.6 billion for the department of
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13